年过半百,写过书,写过论文,要写自己才感到剖析自己之不易。所幸画用不着自己去阐述,就写点所想所识。 我一直认为自己的画是“画”出来的,有的还可以说是“制”出来的,尤其是某些工笔画,有时还感到“制作”不够投入。但有的人说他的画是“写”出来的,好像不用一个“写”字其作品就不够“层次”,就连那些造型严谨,用线工整,设色匀润的工笔画,也要在画上署以“写”字,我真不知哪来的“写”味?难道“画”就没有“骨法用笔”,只有“写”才有“书卷气”、“骨法用笔”吗?他们这么爱“写”,究其原因,大概源于宋元以后文人涉足画坛,提倡“书画同源”的影响。书画可以相互借鉴,以书法用笔介入绘画是有功绩的,但“书画同源”偏偏是古人编造的一个不光彩的迷阵,尤其是后人对“书画同源”的阐发,虽不能说是“以其昏昏”,至少在导向上是有误 Over half a year, wrote books, wrote essays, to write their own analysis of their own difficult to feel. Fortunately, painting does not need to elaborate on their own, just write what they want to know. I always think my painting is “painted”, and some can even be said to be “made by”. In particular, some works of art, sometimes feel that “making” is not enough input. However, some people say that his painting is “written” out. It seems that there is not enough “level” for a painting to be written without “writing.” Even those fine strokes that are rigorous in style, neat in lines, Is it not easy to write “brush” with “writing” on the painting? I just do not know where “writing” is? They love “writing” so much. The reason is probably that the literati came into the painting circle after the Song and Yuan Dynasties and advocated the influence of “the same origin of painting and calligraphy”. Painting and calligraphy can learn from each other, with calligraphy pen intervening painting is a merit, but “calligraphy and painting homologous” happens to be an obscene fan made by the ancients, especially the posterity of the “calligraphy and painting homology” elucidation, though can not say Is “to be fainted”, at least in the guide is wrong